"Ola Fosheim Grøstad" " wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I don't see any reasonable argument to support this view. A critical patch
can be very small.
It's an exaggeration, but still usually true. Most patches take some
non-trivial work to create and debug, no matter how many lines they end up
touching. A patch that only takes a couple of seconds to create does not
save much time for the person who is going to turn it into a pull request.
Telling contributors what is worthwhile and fun for them is kinda
pointless.
People can do what they wish. But the best way to contribute is to follow
the contribution process.
Besides, if you maintain your own fork you might run into bugs that you
have fixed that you don't know how will interact with the main branch.
Letting someone else who know the main branch do the final patch based on
what you have figured out is a nice gesture.
I suppose.
